Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies

Other Views:
Ron Wyatt

He claims to have found Noah's Ark. Answers in Genesis has written
articles showing his claims are false. See Could
this be Noah’s Ark?

He claims to have found the Ark of the Covenant in a quarry outside
Jerusalem. His pictures of the Ark are blurred so it could be any thing.
To see the pictures from Wyatt's website see http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/ark.htm
What Wyatt probably saw was an ossuary which is a box where bones are
placed. Knights in medieval times probably also mistook ossuaries for
the Ark of the Covenant. For more information see web page at Ron
Wyatt's Discoveries

Wyatt claims to have found Sodom and Gomorrah, but what he found was
just a geological feature of salt.

Wyatt claims to have found Mt. Sinai at Jabal al Law as does Bob Cornuke.
See the Gold of the Exodus.

Wyatt claims to have found where Israel crossed the Red Sea, but there
is no proof. He has supposedly planted a wheel in the water.

Richard Rives

Richard RIves is the president of Wyatt Archaeological Research. Richard RIves has taken over for Ron Wyatt who passed away in 1999. He has a museum about one hour south of Nashville, TN. For more information see his website at www.wyattmuseum.com. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinar evidence. Richard RIves was interviewed by Stephen Meyers, president of the Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies in 2012.

Holy Relics or Revelation is a book exposing the false claims
of Ron Wyatt. Wyatt claims to have found the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's
ark, and much more. Cost is $14.95 plus shipping and handling ($4).
Order this paperback book now by phone with a credit card, Visa, MasterCard,
or Discover Card. Call 1-215-423-7374. More product info Click
Here.

Correspondence with Dr. Gary Hurd

Gary S. Hurd received a Doctorate in Social Science from the University
of California, Irvine in 1976. He subsequently served on the
faculties of the California College of Medicine (UCIMC), the Medical College
of Georgia (Psychiatry), and held numerous adjunct appointments. Since
1985, he has returned to archaeology, the principle focus of his early research.
Dr. Hurd has over one hundred publications, including abstracts and technical
reports, ranging from psychiatry, mathematics and chemistry to
frass, prehistoric ceremonialism and forensic taphonomy. He has received
several honors for teaching and research. Dr. Hurd became actively
involved in the creationist anti-science debate as the Curator, and Director
of Education of the Orange County Museum of Natural History.

The
image I observed as http://wyattmuseum.com/images/internetloop.mpg or
the accompanying text failed to provide any scale, or magnification data.
None the less, the image does not appear to be blood. Human red
blood cells are quite easy to identify at even fairly low magnification,
and are not present in the mpeg, or jpeg images I viewed on
the Wyatt website. Bacteria, and fungal spores are ubiquitous and
it is a very rare sample that lacks them. Further, the sample collected
by Wyatt (as described in the webpage) would necessarily have had
contaminants such as pollen grains, which were not observed in the micrographs.
For reasons below, I doubt that Wyatt ever collected the samples he claimed
at any rate. The closest thing in my experience is bacteria, and
as the bodies seemed motile, it could not be blood in any event.

Amateur
microscopists are always "seeing" things. The problem
is not "seeing" it is knowing what you are looking at!
I have had a number of microscopes in my days. I currently own three.
Aside from the trivial learning the mechanical operation of a microscope,
the real learning effort is the interpretation of the images.

If
you could get a sample, I would bet that any histologist would take a
look for you. You might try the "Quackwatch" people.
Speaking as an archaeologist, I would not bother with the analysis of
material without provenience.

I
had to laugh when reading this, "It
must be stated that the mere presence of these particles in no way proves
that the sample taken is "the blood of Christ." These
particles would be present an any re-hydrated blood. What is extremely
significant is the fact that the sample taken was proclaimed by Ron Wyatt
to be blood from a crucifixion site. The presence of these particles tends
to confirm his statement."

First
they correctly point out that finding "particles" won't indicate
anything, and then in the same breath they claim that, "The
presence of these particles tends to confirm his statement."
The observation of what appear to me to be bacteria demonstrates nothing,
including the presence of blood cells (which appear absent), Holy or otherwise.

I
just read the bulk of the Wyatt site's "ark" narrative, and
feel it is unmitigated foolishness. I have spoken with archaeologists
who have worked in Israel, and the sort of work reported by the Wyatt
website would not have been allowed twenty years ago, or thirty years
ago. There are no excavation maps, field drawings, photograph catalog,
accession numbers, or any evidence of the dozens of quite ordinary archaeological
practices that the Israeli antiquities department properly insist
be employed. Plus, there would have been an Israeli archaeologist
and even a Rabbi on site at all times. There would have been quarterly
field reports, and extensive documentation of any objects or even soil
samples removed for analysis, with quarterly progress reports on all analysis
undertaken. Further, voucher specimens would have been left in Israel.
This is all without consideration of the unlikely claims made for the
nature of the specimen. The same procedure would be demanded to
be followed for a brewery, let alone the Ark, and the "Blood of Christ."
I would be very surprised to see basic documents such as Wyatt's
copy of an excavation permit, or his Israeli visa for other
than a typical tourist visit.

There
are rather simple methods used for the collection of samples that are
going to be submitted to biological analysis: little things, like the
proper cleaning of your collection tools to remove contamination before
you take the sample, that Wyatt apparently failed to do. This alone
would have rendered any samples taken useless (even if any samples
were actually taken).

All
and all, I find it very fitting that the Wyatt "blood sample"
is examined by the "live blood cell analysis" of Gaston
Naessens' "somatidian orthobiology."

Best
wishes,

Gary
Hurd, Ph.D.

-----
Original Message -----

From:
ibss

To:
Gary Hurd

Sent:
Monday, February 17, 2003 4:32 AM

Subject:
RE: Project Steve URL

Thank
you for the information about the interesting Project Steve, although
my degrees are in theology.

I
remember you were interested in dino blood. I thought you might be interested
in Christ’s blood. Ron Wyatt claims to have found the Ark of the Covenant
with the blood of Christ on it. He is now deceased, but his wife still
has samples of the blood in her home in Tennessee. Wyatt claimed the blood
is still alive and multiplying. He claims there are only 24 chromosomes
in the blood. 23 are from Mary and 1 Y chromosome from God. See the live
blood at http://wyattmuseum.com/ark-of-the-covenant-07b.htm.
What about Somatids?
See http://wyattmuseum.com/ark-of-the-covenant-07.htm
. I was wondering what your opinion was of this? Is there a lab that would
be willing to independently test the blood (for free)? I think Wyatt is
a fraud, but it would be nice to have a lab test to prove this.